[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11256-11261]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 11256]]

                        AMERICA'S ENERGY POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, this evening, several of us want to address


an extremely important topic, and that topic is energy. Energy is 
normally not a high-priority issue for most members of the public, and, 
in fact, for many Members of this Congress.
  Nevertheless, it is one of the most important issues that we deal 
with, and that becomes apparent every time we have a shortage of 
energy. Prices rise and then we have a major economic impact.
  Mr. Speaker, in fact, energy is so important that the last three 
recessions that this country has experienced have followed immediately 
upon shortages of energy and an increase in energy prices, and there is 
some concern that that might happen if we do not correct the current 
energy shortage.
  There are many aspects to discuss regarding energy, and tonight we 
will be joined by the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and 
the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Ehlers) for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight we are going to talk about the energy problem 
across America, and we are going to talk about some solutions and some 
ways that I think we can look to the future to try to solve some of the 
problems.
  Mr. Speaker, the energy crisis in California has been devastating 
communities across the western United States, and its effects are being 
felt across many industries. Our Nation has been blessed with an 
abundance of natural resources from which our energy can be produced.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel that this unfortunate situation in California is 
one that need not be repeated, and we must work to ensure this.
  At a time when we have the technology to produce energy in a much 
cleaner, more efficient way, we should be devising the long-term 
solutions to help prevent situations like the one in California from 
occurring again.
  We are seeing the prices of services rise as the funds to pay for 
these services are depleting. Today, it costs more to operate 
businesses, drive our cars; and in West Virginia, the cost of cooling 
and heating our homes is rising.
  Unfortunately, the demand for more energy is not decreasing, and 
companies are being forced to close, vital members of our Nation's 
workforce are losing their jobs.
  With California's economy representing 13 percent of the total U.S. 
Gross Domestic Product, it cannot survive under these conditions; and 
unfortunately, a poorly thought out deregulation plan has severely 
damaged the world's sixth largest economy.
  Mr. Speaker, in my home State of West Virginia, we have an abundance 
of coal and natural gas; but many of these resources have lain asleep, 
untapped, due partly in effect of the overly restrictive regulations 
that have prevented the extraction, the production and transportation 
of these sources of energy.
  Today, many of these resources could serve as a lifeboat to our 
friends in the West if only we had recognized these sources' potential 
contributions and had been wise stewards of them.
  But a decade of ignoring our domestic sources of energy and stifling 
energy production has unfortunately left some classrooms in the dark, 
some businesses offline, and some local infrastructures paralyzed. But 
this is not a hopeless situation, and that is why we are talking about 
it tonight.
  This country can chart a new course for the history books, one that 
includes a natural energy policy that utilizes our domestic resources 
and promotes speedy, efficient, and environmentally-sound production of 
energy. We can do this at the same time by instituting meaningful means 
of conservation of our precious energy resources.
  I look forward to working with the rest of Congress in developing the 
smart plan for our future, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
engaging in this conversation.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the role that West Virginia will play 
in the development of a comprehensive energy plan for our Nation. I 
think West Virginia's abundant resources can be used effectively, can 
be burned environmentally in a cleaner fashion; and it can give us, I 
think, a good baseline of the energy production that we desperately 
need in this country. I look forward to working with the gentleman to 
try to solve this problem.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia 
(Mrs. Capito) for her comments; and obviously, she is referring 
principally to the sources of coal in West Virginia I assume, and one 
of the big problems, of course, is clean coal technology.
  We have to recognize, although coal has some drawbacks, it also is 
the largest supply of fossil fuels we have in this country by far; and 
in fact, that is true worldwide as well.
  If we do not do the research and develop clean methods of burning 
coal or using it in other ways, we are going to be behind the 8-ball 
fairly soon, because the supplies of oil and natural gas are much 
shorter; and, furthermore, natural gas is useful for so many other 
purposes, particularly as a feedstock in the petrochemical industry; 
and coal is, by far, the better source of energy than natural gas.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentlewoman and thank 
her for taking the time to join us in this Special Order.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. 
Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, and I 
was very pleased to be asked by the gentleman from Michigan to join him 
tonight to talk about America's energy policy and where we need to go 
and what should be the priorities of this Congress.
  I was very pleased that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
earlier this week put out a new order to a new rule about the way they 
regulate companies that had a price mitigation strategy in it. And for 
the West I think it will provide some immediate relief in California 
and also other western States without putting on price caps which have 
been called for by some in the House and, before this order came out, 
some in the Senate.
  I think that that order will also help move this Congress away from a 
discussion of short-term Band-Aid solutions in California, to the long-
term issues and solutions and strategies that we need to address our 
energy future.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take some time this evening to talk 
about the current energy crunch and our solutions for the long term for 
a very broad and balanced approach to energy policy.
  Mr. Speaker, the electric bills that all of us have been receiving in 
the mail for electricity and also for natural gas have been hurting 
everyone. We need that electricity and that gas to heat our homes, to 
cook our food; and it is especially hurting folks on low incomes.
  I was very pleased also that this House passed additional assistance 
for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and cooling needs for 
those on low incomes. Most of us do not think about energy until it 
becomes a problem.
  We have not had a natural energy policy in this country for over a 
decade and arguably for 2 decades. We are more dependent on foreign oil 
today than we were at the height of the energy crisis in the 1970s.
  Fifty-five percent of our oil is imported primarily from the Middle 
East, making us dependent on foreign governments, many of whom are not 
our friends.
  California expanded its consumption of electricity over the last 
decade by some 10,000 megawatts of power while it only built 800 
megawatts of power plants. Now, I do not understand megawatts very 
well, but think about it this way: if your kids become teenagers and 
they start drinking 10,000 gallons more milk a year, which is probably 
about right, and you only bought 800 more gallons to put in the fridge, 
you would have a problem.

                              {time}  2215

  California created for itself a problem. They did not plan. They 
ignored the growth of California's economy and

[[Page 11257]]

its population, and Californians are paying a very heavy price.
  America needs reliable, affordable, clean energy to support our 
expanding economy, our growing population, and our rising standard of 
living. When we flick the switch, the light should go on. When we go to 
work, we should have the energy to produce the goods and services for 
our growing economy. When we fill up at the gas station, the price 
should be reasonable, and it should not be set by a foreign dictator. 
And when we come home, we should be able to enjoy clean water, clean 
air, and clean land with our families.
  The energy crunch we face today is one made yesterday, and it will 
not be solved today or even tomorrow. We are not going to be able to 
fix this in a day. And while there are some things that we can and 
should do to give ourselves some immediate short-term relief, it is 
more important to get the long-term policies right so that we never get 
into this situation again. I do not believe that Band-Aids are answers, 
and some of the quick fixes that we have heard bandied about in 
Washington do more harm than good. It is long past time to have a 
balanced, long-term approach to make sure that we have a safe and 
stable supply of energy for the long term.
  Now, I come from New Mexico. New Mexico is an energy producing State. 
We produce oil and natural gas, we have some of the country's largest 
reserves of uranium, and we have coal fields. Last year oil and gas 
alone produced about $2.6 billion worth of products to light our homes 
and run our industries. Living in New Mexico, and I know there are some 
folks in this body that would disagree with me, but I come from the 
most beautiful State in the Nation. I believe that we can meet 
America's energy needs in a way that preserves the beauty of the home 
that I love and the homes that all of my colleagues love.
  We have made tremendous progress in the last decade on cleaning up 
the air and cleaning the water and finding ways of exploring for energy 
that do less damage to the environment. There is no turning back, and 
nobody wants to. The good news is that from what I have seen, serving 
on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, over the last half year of 
holding hearings and testimony and doing inquiries and gathering 
evidence, I do not think we have to turn back. I think we can have a 
balanced energy policy where we have the safe, clean, healthy 
environment we want and we also have the energy we need for our 
country. But if we are going to do that, we need to act and we need to 
act now. If we do not act, we need look no further than California to 
see the consequences for our futures: rolling blackouts, skyrocketing 
prices, $2 or even $3 a gallon for gasoline.
  So where do we go and what do we do? How can we address this energy 
need in a way that is comprehensive, that does not look to Band-Aids 
for solutions? I think that legislation that the House should pass 
before the August break will have several pieces that are important. We 
will have conservation, we will have measures to increase the supply of 
energy, we must address problems with the infrastructure in this 
country, and we need government reform. We will also pay some special 
attention to the problem of gasoline prices, and I would like to talk 
about these things a little bit tonight.
  Conservation has to be a pillar of our energy strategy, there is no 
doubt about that, and I do not think we have any differences in our 
House about that. Conservation allows us to use less energy to live the 
lives that we want, to live and do the things that we want to do. 
Refrigerators today, and I had to buy a new one recently, thank 
goodness my husband was home to take care of that, the one that we 
bought just recently uses about a third less energy than one built in 
1972. Cars get more miles to the gallon today than they did back in the 
1970s, and we are on the verge of breakthroughs in technology that 
might even double gas mileage without reducing the power and range on 
our cars.
  Contrary to what we sometimes hear, Republicans do want to reduce the 
use of energy and the waste of precious resources. After all, we are 
conservative by our very nature. We do not like to waste things. I do 
not like to waste the half-eaten burrito in my refrigerator that my 
kids left from Taco Bell, let alone something as precious as our 
energy. We have home builders, like Artistic Homes in Albuquerque, that 
are making their businesses strong by making homes more energy 
efficient. Artistic Homes is unique because it is a first-time buyer 
home builder. They build homes at the low end of the scale and they are 
part of the Department of Energy's Building America program, a program 
that the President strongly supported in his energy plan.
  I think we should look here in the Congress at changing the Federal 
Mortgage Home Loan programs to make it easier for first-time buyers to 
get an energy efficient home. If they get an energy efficient home, it 
not only reduces the use of energy, it reduces the monthly utility 
bills, and that is good for consumers as well as being good for the 
environment.
  We have new possibilities with renewable fuels, like ethanol that is 
made from corn, cogeneration of electricity and heat, advances in solar 
power, that all hold potential for reducing our energy use and they 
have to be part of our national energy policy. But we cannot conserve 
our way out of this energy crunch any more than I can feed my family 
with half-eaten burritos. We also cannot drill our way out of this 
energy crunch. We have to have a balanced approach that addresses both 
conservation and increasing energy supply.
  We have to diverse and increase energy supply while protecting the 
environment, and that is the second prong, the second strategy we will 
pursue here in the House. The first is conservation; the second is 
increased supply. As my colleague from Michigan mentioned, coal 
generates a little over 50 percent of our electricity in this country. 
Nuclear is about 20 percent. But the only plants now on the drawing 
board are for natural gas, and we may create a shortage of natural gas 
and start having to rely on imported natural gas. I think it would be a 
real mistake to rely only on one source of electricity generation. We 
need to have nuclear, hydro, clean coal, natural gas, distributed 
generation and renewable energy as components of our supply.
  I would like to emphasize the need for nuclear energy. For 20 years, 
nuclear energy has been in the too hard column, almost impossible to 
get a nuclear plant approved in America, and yet nuclear power is 
cleaner than other sources of fuel. It is also safer. And the safety 
record has improved even further over the last 10 years. Research on 
new designs can change the economics of nuclear power generation.
  The energy bills that we are going to work on here in the House I 
hope will streamline the licensing of hydropower. Most people do not 
know it in this country, but it takes up to 10 years to get a dam 
licensed with a turbine, even if the dam is already built and all you 
are doing is putting a turbine on water that is flowing down the 
spillway. That does not make any sense when there is a shortage of 
power in the West and we could have more hydropower without even 
building any more new dams. I think we will find a way to better 
balance and allow exploration on public lands and balance the needs of 
conservation environmental protection and production of new sources. So 
we need conservation.
  We need to produce more energy and get it to the market, but to get 
it to the market we have got to fix our infrastructure. Now, 
California's problem was not just that they did not build power plants, 
but they did not build power lines to get the power to the people who 
needed it.
  We also have a shortage of refineries in this country. We have not 
built a refinery in over 20 years. Our refineries are working at 95, 97 
percent of capacity. Any safety problem or fire at a refinery 
immediately creates a shortage of supply. We have only one port in our 
country that can accept liquefied natural gas, so that we are very 
dependent on that port. And in an age of sophisticated remote sensing, 
many of our pipelines are still inspected by people who walk the line 
and look for discoloration in the soil.

[[Page 11258]]

  We have to modernize and expand the infrastructure, including safe 
pipelines, adequate transmission and refining capacity, and enough 
redundancy so that we can reduce the consequences of single point 
failure. So we will pass conservation measures, we will pass increased 
production, we will pass bills to make infrastructure stronger in this 
country, but we also need government reform.
  The Federal Government does not integrate well its energy policy, 
environmental and economic and foreign policy-making so that we can 
avert energy problems. I am sure it is probably no surprise to anyone 
in this body that the Federal Government is not exactly one large well-
oiled machine that gets everything done efficiently. Right now the 
Environmental Protection Agency or the State Department or 
Transportation or Agriculture or Interior can make policy decisions 
that affect our Nation's energy supply without ever having to think 
about our energy supply. They can make those decisions based solely on 
their department's view of what the right thing to do is; their 
constituency. They do not have to worry about what it does to the price 
of gas in Belen, New Mexico or how much it costs to heat our homes.
  Now in a crunch time, like today, those agencies are forced to 
consider energy as part of their policy-making; suspend some rules, 
accelerate some procedures. But when public attention subsides, goes 
back to business as usual, and bureaucrats do not have to think about 
energy, I think that we have to integrate Federal policy when it comes 
to energy so that we can prevent this situation from ever happening 
again.
  We have a national security policy-making apparatus that seems to 
work. We have had it in place since 1948. We cannot have the Defense 
Department doing one thing and the State Department doing something 
else and the intelligence agencies doing something completely 
different. They must work together toward a common national security 
end. It is long past time that we do the same for energy and that we 
have a policy-making process that takes into account America's energy 
security.

                              {time}  2230

  So those are the strategies that will define how this House and how 
the Republican majority in this House will address the challenges of 
energy for this country.
  We will focus on conservation. We will take measures to increase 
supply. We will address our crumbling infrastructure, and we will 
engage in government reform. We will also pay some special attention to 
gas prices.
  Mr. Speaker, I filled up over the weekend in Albuquerque, and it cost 
me $1.57.9 for a gallon of gas, and that was lower than the last time I 
filled up which was after a price spike. In May, the Federal Trade 
Commission completed an investigation into gas prices last summer, and 
found there was no price gouging, but there were some other problems. 
For instance, we have 20 different formulas for what gasoline should be 
and State and local government can set different standards at different 
times of the year.
  When Milwaukee's formula is different from Chicago's, and they change 
their formula in different weeks of the year with different 
requirements on whether the gas station has to drain its tanks first 
and so on, you can easily see where there are local shortages of supply 
of some kinds of gasoline. In any free market, a shortage of supply 
means an increase in price.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the helpful things that we can do at the Federal 
level to keep gas prices down is to establish regional formulas for 
gasoline. It does not mean that we are going to change the result of 
the standard and the desire for clean air, but just to say that instead 
of 20 formulas, let us go to some regional formulas and get our 
formulas aligned so we do not create problems for ourselves and for 
consumers.
  I also mention that we have a problem with refining in this country 
and that we have not built a new refinery. As I understand it, refining 
has about a 4 percent profit, and they have a lot of hassle and risk 
with safety and permitting problems. We need to explore ways, changes 
to Federal rules or tax policy so we can see an increase in refining 
capacity so we are not so tight on refining all of the time.
  Third, with respect to gas, a third of the oil that we import is for 
our cars. Making our cars more efficient with more miles to the gallon, 
alternative fuels and research into hybrid vehicles like combined 
electric and gasoline motors will reduce the demand in the price of 
gasoline and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  We also need to look abroad. We know that much of the known reserves 
of oil are in the Middle East, but there are also some potential 
sources of oil in the states of the former Soviet Union. We are going 
to have to work with those states, looking at the Caspian and in 
Central and South America and offshore so we can look at developing 
alternative sources of supplies. It is when the cartel holds all of the 
cards that we are at the whim of the world's dictators.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan's inviting me here. I think 
the comprehensive energy legislation that we plan to pass in the House 
this summer is based on some sound thought. It will include 
conservation, increased production and strengthen our crumbling 
infrastructure, and it will include government reform.
  I think with this comprehensive energy legislation, this broad-based, 
long-term approach to the challenges we face in America we can have 
energy security. We can have a safer, cleaner, healthier place to live 
and meet the growing needs of our prosperous Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for sharing his time 
with me.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to yield the gentlewoman the 
time. I appreciate her very well-said comments.
  Picking up on a few items that the gentlewoman mentioned, she 
mentioned that price caps would not be a good answer. I would like to 
emphasize that. If we impose a cap on the price of energy, we are 
simply encouraging people to buy more energy and waste it because the 
price is so low they can afford to waste it. That furthermore 
discourages the production of more energy because if the price is 
capped, a company cannot make money producing more energy. So price 
caps are doubly a bad idea. They discourage production and encourage 
waste and make the problem worse.
  I also appreciate the gentlewoman's comments about efficiency, and 
the comment about the refrigerator reminds me of an incident. I 
remember when my wife and I first married and we lived in apartments, 
and then we moved into an unfurnished house and had to buy a 
refrigerator. We shopped around and looked at many models and narrowed 
it down to two different models, one for $250 and one which cost $500. 
Remember this was roughly 1962.
  So then I did an analysis of the energy use of the two refrigerators, 
and I said we have to buy the $500 one. That seems strange, why should 
you buy the $500 one when you can get an identical one for $250. The 
difference was efficiency of operation. I calculated if we kept the 
refrigerator 12 years, we would more than pay for the extra $250 we 
bought and anything beyond that would be an added benefit. In fact, we 
kept the refrigerator over 23 years. So we essentially got it free 
compared to the other one given the purchase price and the energy use 
of the other one.
  That is a calculation that not too many Americans are able to make 
because not all Americans are physicists, as I am, but it was easy to 
do and that illustrates the importance of labeling energy efficiency. 
And I think it would be important to have labels which indicate what 
the pay-back period is for buying a particular model.
  Another item which the gentlewoman mentioned is the issue of foreign 
oil.
  I remember the so-called energy crisis of 1973 when we had long 
gasoline lines, cars lined up for blocks waiting to get gasoline. I 
remember those days very, very well. At that time we were horrified 
when the Nation realized that roughly 35 to 40 percent of our oil 
consumption was imported from abroad,

[[Page 11259]]

and that these foreign companies were able to Shanghai us literally by 
saying we are going to cut production in order to raise our prices, and 
we ran out of oil.
  We thought that was terrible. We went into energy conservation mode. 
We did a lot of good things. We did greater production of energy and so 
forth. But we have short memories. It was not too many years when we 
forgot that, and now we are at a situation where we are importing a 
minimum of 55 percent of our oil from other countries, and it continues 
to climb.
  Furthermore, it is no longer an option really to increase our 
production the way we did in 1973 because we have used so much of our 
own resources. At this point only 2 or 3 percent of the known reserves 
of the world are in our country, and the rest is all foreign oil. So we 
cannot simply rush out and increase our production because we have used 
most of the cheap oil in this country. It would be a great cost to 
produce a good share of our oil from within this country, barring other 
technical developments. Therefore, we will continue to be at the mercy 
of foreign oil unless we develop alternative sources of energy, unless 
we improve the efficiency of using our energy.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her comments and 
emphasize those few points because I think they are really extremely 
important.
  Getting back to what I said at the very beginning of this hour, 
energy is far more important than most people think it is. Part of that 
I believe is that energy is intangible to us. We cannot see it. We 
cannot touch it. We cannot feel it. We cannot taste it. The only 
tangible evidence is the price at the gas pump or the utility bill at 
the end of the month. That is when we get concerned.
  But if energy were only purple, if only we could see energy and we 
could see what happens in our house where energy would be oozing 
through the walls and the walls of the house would look purplish, and 
we could see it streaming out around the windows that are not sealed 
and we would have this copious amount of purple coming at us. Or we 
would see the small car with a small amount of purple, and the SUV 
would go by with a purple cloud so bad we could not even see the 
vehicle.
  If we could see the intrinsic qualities of energy and see when it was 
being wasted, I think we would change our habits considerably. 
Unfortunately, we do not have that advantage, so we have to try to 
educate ourselves about energy and try to make the best possible uses 
of energy.
  There are a lot of ways that we save energy, in terms of buildings, 
insulation, reducing infiltration of outside air. Improved lighting has 
a surprising large effect. Light bulbs are only a hundred watts, that 
is not very much, but in 1974 when I decided to change the lighting in 
our house and I put fluorescent lights and fluorescent bulbs in every 
fixture that was used frequently, and I was surprised by the energy 
saved.
  When I sealed the house with insulation, we saved over a third in our 
energy bills for our house, our natural gas bills. So there is a lot 
that can be done.
  In industry, improving efficiency of electric motors. New electric 
motors are much more efficient. Also, by using appropriate controls 
adjusted to the load, we can improve our efficiency and use of 
electrical energy.
  We can also, with automobiles, consider making better use of the 
diesel engine. I owned two diesel vehicles in the 1980s, and I found 
them wonderful. The most wonderful part was driving 800 miles between 
gasoline stops. They are very efficient and operate well.
  There are fuel cells on the horizon, and this relates to the whole 
hydrogen economy. If we can manage to produce hydrogen cheaply enough 
and transport it, and we develop fuel cells, that will be an advantage.
  Hybrid automobiles are also a good answer. So there are many things 
that we can do to improve energy efficiency and use less energy.
  We also have to worry about the pollution effects of energy use as 
well, and we have tried very hard in this country to clean up our air. 
We have succeeded to a great extent. We have far less pollution from 
automobiles than we did in my youth. And a few years back when my 
daughter was a missionary in Costa Rico with her husband, we were 
amazed by the pollution there. It made me appreciate more what we have 
done in this country.
  Even so, we still have problem with nitrogen oxides of various sorts 
getting into the air. And as long as we have sulfur in the fuel, we are 
going to continue to have problems with sulfur dioxide getting into the 
air, which of course when it combines with water vapor makes sulfuric 
acid and leads to what is commonly called acid rain.
  Those are pollutants we must clean up and will eventually clean up, 
either through other means of propulsion, such as fuel cells, or some 
other way.
  In addition to that, we have copious production of carbon dioxide, a 
greenhouse gas. In addition to that, because we are using a lot of 
natural gas and we continue to drill wells, there is leakage of methane 
which is 100 times more of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. That 
is leading to potential major changes in our global climate.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not like to talk about global warming because the 
real issue is global climate change. That means much more than just 
warming. It means dramatic changes in rainfall. Some areas that have 
much rainfall now might become deserts, deserts might become fertile 
areas, depending on changing patterns. And it also has an effect on 
violent weather.
  These are issues we have to consider. With our copious use of fossil 
fuels, these are going to become major effects.
  I think we have only begun to see the effects of improved means of 
producing energy. We are so used to our current model we think that is 
the only way. But I predict because of the difficulties in California, 
we are going to see a boom in what is called micropower, where small 
power units are purchased, perhaps sometimes in homes, more frequently 
perhaps in businesses, especially in manufacturing plants.

                              {time}  2245

  The Silicon Valley, which is famous for the work they have done in 
semiconductor chips, has had some disastrous occurrences of power 
outages in California. Just shutting the power off for 1 minute at a 
major plant like that costs them $1 million. If the electricity is off 
much longer than that, of course, the cost increases. So I suspect many 
of them will turn to smaller power units, which are kept right in the 
factory and are totally dependable. If they ever do fail, generally the 
power lines would still be operating and you could use them as a 
backup.
  We have to also develop many different alternative forms of energy. I 
could name many that are available. I expect that within a few years, 
with increases of electricity prices, we will be putting solar shingles 
on houses, photovoltaic shingles that will provide electricity, perhaps 
initially crude electricity that would be good only for heating the 
water and providing heat for the home, perhaps air conditioning; but 
eventually with proper electronics, it can be sophisticated power and 
supply all the energy needs of the house.
  Everyone, of course, says, What happens when the sun goes away? Well, 
then you need energy storage devices. Batteries are one form of that; 
but if you want to, you can get a little more sophisticated. You could 
electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen; when you need energy, you 
combine them again in a fuel cell, and that would provide electricity 
for the house, so you could be totally independent of the power grid. 
These are all things that might be considered in the future.
  I always like to, when looking at our energy sources, characterize 
them in terms of personal finances, because I think you can look at it 
that way. When we consider our personal finances, first of all we have 
income from a job, a profession, whatever we have. In addition to that, 
many of us have savings accounts, where we keep some money for 
emergencies. And some are fortunate enough to have an inheritance. We 
have exactly the same

[[Page 11260]]

situation with energy. We have income, the solar energy which streams 
onto our planet. The amount that streams on the earth is so immense 
that the amount contained in all the fossil fuels of the earth is less 
than a couple of weeks of solar radiation. The problem is that it is so 
diffuse, it is hard to use. But nevertheless we can develop means of 
using that. That is our only income, of energy, solar energy. That is 
the only energy coming into our planet.
  In addition to that, we have a savings account. That is the fossil 
fuels, the oil, natural gas, coal. Those are stored fossil fuels, 
stored solar energy. They were created from solar energy that came into 
the earth for a very long time. It formed in plants. The plants then 
eventually decayed and formed the organic by-products that give us oil, 
natural gas, and coal. So we have a savings account. That is the fossil 
fuel that is in the earth.
  And then we have what you might call an inheritance. Geothermal 
energy, for example, the heat that is in the earth and has been there 
since its creation gradually radiating into space, but there is an 
immense amount there yet. The core of our planet is molten iron, 
obviously very warm. So geothermal energy, we can consider an 
inheritance. We acquired it when we were placed on this planet. Another 
inheritance is nuclear energy, because that also was present at the 
creation of the earth, continues to release heat constantly, in fact 
contributes much of the heat of geothermal. So nuclear energy we can 
also consider an inheritance.
  I think the rule of thumb that we have in our life, as far as our 
finances are concerned, that we try to live within our income, when 
necessary we will dip into our savings or our inheritance, is also a 
good rule to follow in energy use. I think it would be absolutely 
criminal if we were in a generation or two to burn up all the fossil 
fuels on this planet without thinking about what our children and 
grandchildren are going to do.
  Now, I do think it is permissible to use a good share of the fossil 
fuels if we use that energy to develop new sources of energy, to make 
better use of nuclear energy, of geothermal energy and other sources 
that we might develop or invent. That is fine, because we are leaving 
our children and our grandchildren another way of using energy. But we 
have to always keep that in mind and be very careful of the use of the 
resources we have.
  Two very important factors to remember about energy: number one, 
energy is a unique resource. It is our only nonrecyclable resource on 
this planet. Once you use it, it is gone. It is not like iron, copper, 
other materials that can be recycled over and over. Once you use 
energy, it is gone. Energy is our only nonrecyclable resource. The 
other major factor is energy is our most basic natural resource because 
without it you cannot use any of the other resources. You cannot use 
iron if you do not have energy because to use iron, you have to first 
dig the ore out of the ground, that takes energy; you have to transport 
it to a mill, that takes energy; you have to smelt it, that takes 
energy; you have to roll it, that takes energy; then transport it to a 
factory which takes energy; and then fabricate it, which takes energy. 
And then use more energy to transport the finished product to the 
consumer. Every step of the way requires energy. If you do not have 
sufficient energy, you cannot use any of the other resources on the 
earth.
  I think we have spent a lot of time talking about some of the basic 
nature of energy here and some of the problems we have to face. But I 
think it is very important to keep all of these factors in mind as we 
attempt to solve the energy shortages we have. I think the energy 
resource problem we have is not one that we can solve with a magic 
stroke of legislation or we can solve through new development; but it 
is something that is going to involve millions of individual efforts by 
millions, and in fact billions, of people on this planet to make it 
come true. The government cannot conserve energy for everyone. We all 
have to do it. We have to use energy resources wisely. It is not just 
up to the government. It is up to the people of this planet to do it.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico for additional comments.
  Mrs. WILSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I really wanted to 
emphasize something the gentleman from Michigan said early on in his 
remarks about price caps. There was some discussion about it here on 
the floor today. It is amazing to me that even after the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission made its decision on Monday to go after a market-
based solution, they call it a price mitigation solution, it takes into 
account changes in the market day to day, that there are still folks 
who want to say, Well, prices are too high, so let's have the 
government set what the price is. That did not work in the 1970s. It 
has not worked for any kind of commodity. And it would really make 
things so much worse, would make the pain much longer and much more 
intense than it is today.
  The reasons for that are really pretty simple. First, if something 
does not cost as much as it really costs, then people are not as 
careful about not wasting it. I know that is true of me. When you are 
paying $1.57.9 for a gallon of gas, you start planning the way you are 
going to do your errands on Saturday so you do one trip instead of two. 
You tell the kids to turn the lights off. You get smart about the way 
you use energy and think about things and whether we really need to 
turn the air conditioner on as much as we do or whether we turn it off 
when we are going to leave for the weekend.
  The second thing that it does is, the real problem in California is 
they just did not build enough power plants. They grew their economy, 
they grew the population considerably and figured that they would 
import the power from other places. If you put on price caps and you 
create huge uncertainty in the industry, nobody is going to go in and 
say, Yeah, I'm going to take my savings; I'm going to invest in a new 
power plant, if you do not know whether you are going to be able to 
recover your investment. So it does not solve the real problem, which 
is supply. A price cap does not produce one more kilowatt of 
electricity.
  Then the other thing I think it would cause is the reality now that 
California is dependent on importing electricity from much of the West, 
including the State of New Mexico. If you put on price caps, you will 
not be able to buy some power, because people will not sell it to you 
if they have to sell it to you at a loss. We could make this so much 
worse. I do not understand why there are still some in the Congress who 
think the right answer is for us to legislate the price of power. It 
would be a disaster for California, for the West.
  I am glad the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission took the steps 
that it did, and in fact I was one of the 17 Members of this House that 
signed a letter asking them to pursue this strategy, a market-based 
strategy of price mitigation. But really we need to shift and focus on 
the long-term policies that we need. I do believe that we need a 
balanced and long-term policy. It has got to include conservation, both 
conservation by individuals but also the government in systemic efforts 
that we need. If I go to Baillio's, which is our appliance store, if I 
do not have a choice of an energy-efficient refrigerator, then I really 
cannot conserve in that way. There are some things that government must 
do to make sure that conservation works and that it is not just my 
decision to turn on or off my lights, but a decision and an 
encouragement to invest in efficient lighting systems by industries or, 
for example, the Building America program I mentioned.
  The interesting thing about the Building America program and the way 
that it has changed the building of homes is it is not just adding 
another layer of insulation in the attic, which we have done that, too. 
It is the changing the design of the home, starting from the ground up, 
on making it energy efficient. The savings are just incredible. That is 
really important for first-time buyers who are looking at how much can 
they cover on their mortgage, how much house can they get for their 
money. If the cost of

[[Page 11261]]

maintaining that house is maybe 10 or 15 or $20 lower, that can go to a 
mortgage payment rather than to the electric bill. So building from the 
ground up is very important.
  Those are things that we can encourage and do through government. We 
have got to increase supply, no question about that, in order to reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil. The gentleman mentioned it, and I think 
it is worth repeating, 55 percent of America's oil comes from outside 
the United States. The fastest growing supplier of oil to America, and 
the number six supplier to America, is Iraq.
  Most folks do not know that Saddam Hussein probably has more impact 
on American gas prices than any of us would wish to admit. I noticed an 
article in the paper on Monday, they are reconsidering sanctions on 
Iraq. And not a surprise, every time they do that at the United 
Nations, Iraq decides that it is going to turn off its spigot and tell 
the rest of the world that they have us by the short hairs. I do not 
want to be by the short hairs with Saddam Hussein, which means we need 
to reduce our foreign dependence on single sources of supply so that 
when one individual dictator says, Well, I'm turning off the spigot, we 
have other sources, we are not over a barrel, that our energy policy is 
not just going on bended knee to other governments and begging for oil. 
That is not a policy. That is a plea. We should not put ourselves in 
that situation.
  So we have got to have conservation, we have got to have exploration, 
we have got to build our infrastructure and take care of some of the 
infrastructure problems that we have, and we need real government 
reform. I think that that is the recipe for a stable, long-term policy 
for energy independence in this country. I appreciate the gentleman's 
efforts to bring this session to the House.
  Mr. EHLERS. That was an excellent summary of what we have been trying 
to convey this evening. I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for her 
comments.

                          ____________________